Ok, you make some valid points, particularly about how certification doesn’t amount to a hill of beans and why you wouldn’t want certified teachers in your home, but the fact remains that this ‘ruling’ is nothing new. You state that parents have been proving ‘for decades’
Yet the appeals court said state law has been clear since at least 1953, when another appellate court rejected a challenge by homeschooling parents to California’s compulsory education statutes. Those statutes require children ages 6 to 18 to attend a full-time day school, either public or private, or to be instructed by a tutor who holds a state credential for the child’s grade level.
The article states that the appeals court ruled on a case based on laws already on the books. That was in '53. It doesn’t say when the laws got on the books but apparently well before the '50s.
The fact remains that the state has **overlooked **the law ‘for decades’ enabling parents to prove the point you were making. So you can’t say this ruling changes the law or is anything new. It’s not new. If you don’t want certified teachers in your home then it’s time to lobby to have the law changed to strike out that last ‘option’ and replace it with ‘or be taught by the child’s immediate parent’.
The law is set that a person has to be 21 to buy or consume alcoholic beverages. For ‘decades’ people have proven that people can consume alcohol responsibly (or irresponsibly) from age 17 on - but they break the law in order to prove that point. For the most part, the authorities overlook the law breaking, but occasionally they crack down on certain cases.
What parents have been doing for decades with regard to homeschooling is breaking the law as it is written. Authorities have been overlooking that for decades until a case was brought to them which forced them to make a ruling. Judges rule on matters of law so when they look at the case, look at the law on the books, they have to rule a certain way.
They ruled on the matter in the 50s, now they’ve ruled again the same way because the law didn’t change between the '50s and now. What were the ripple effects from that '53 ruling? What will they be now? That’s up to all the homeschooling parents out there, but get the facts straight and attack the issue from the right direction.
If you don’t want to use the provision already on the books by hiring a certified teacher, then get that provision replaced with one to your liking. Until that happens the law is the law and parents who do not abide by the law are breaking it and are vulnerable to the consequences of that decision - no matter how just the decision may be.
As the title of this thread states - this is a setback **- **it’s not the end of homeschooling, but it certainly raises to the surface the real battle that now needs to be waged.